DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act in the hands of assessee. Accordingly ground No. 2-4 raised by assessee stands allowed.” 9.2 The facts for year under consideration are identical and nothing contrary has been placed on record by revenue

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40(a)(i) for software expenses - Rs. 24,723,240 a) The learned Assessing Officer (AO) and the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') have erred in disallowing software expense amounting to Rs. 24,723,240 for non- deduction of tax at source. b) The learned AO/DRP ought to have observed that on the said expense, no TDS

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1-6- 2015. Hence, the demand notices under section 200A by the respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.[Para 24

M/S.METROPOLITAN MEDIA COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

24,26,535/- and the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the act were issued. In compliance the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is engaged in business of printing

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This was complied with by the authorized representative of assessee. The Ld.ITO(TDS) from the details observed assessee had disallowed Rs.7,08,24

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This was complied with by the authorized representative of assessee. The Ld.ITO(TDS) from the details observed assessee had disallowed Rs.7,08,24

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

24 taxmann.com 76). On the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that the ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense under section 37(1) of the Act and that no disallowance be made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

24 April 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal 3545/2009 overruled the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries and upheld the constitutional validity for deduction of leave encashment on payment basis under section 43B(f) of the Act. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, the deduction on account of provision

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS on provisions for software expenses amounting to Rs.7,36,83,260 and consequent disallowance, if any, u/ 40(a)(i) of the Act, following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KPTCL Vs. DCIT (supra) and of the co- ordinate bench in the case of TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. (supra) after

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS and therefore not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Ground No.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23 IT(TP)A Nos.799 & 942/Bang/2015 Infosys Limited 21. Ground No.4 - Computation of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 21.1 In this ground, Revenue contends that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

24 taxmann.com 76).\nOn the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that\nthe ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense\nunder section 37(1) of the Act and that no disallowance be made under\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

24 taxmann.com 76).\nOn the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that\nthe ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense\nunder section 37(1) of the Act and that no disallowance be made under\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24 taxmann.com 76).\nOn the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that\nthe ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense\nunder section 37(1) of the Act and that no disallowance be made under\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

24 taxmann.com 76).\nOn the basis of the above submissions, the learned assessee urged that\nthe ESOP expenditure be allowed as a deductible business expense\nunder section 37(1) of the Act and that no disallowance be made under\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS